Patterico's Pontifications

6/1/2022

Sussmann Acquitted

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



John Durham’s first trial was a bust, ending in a quick acquittal.

A federal jury delivered a major setback to special counsel John Durham on Tuesday, acquitting cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann on a charge that he lied to the FBI in 2016 while acting on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

After a two-week trial that revived old controversies about the FBI’s role in that presidential election, the verdict was not a close call or a hard decision, two jurors told The Washington Post.

“Politics were not a factor,” said the jury forewoman, who declined to give her name as she left the federal courthouse in downtown Washington. “We felt really comfortable being able to share what we thought. We had concise notes, and we were able to address the questions together.

“Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” the forewoman added, saying the government “could have spent our time more wisely.” A second juror told The Post that in the jury room, “everyone pretty much saw it the same way.”

Trumpers online assure us that the proceeding was corrupt.

I wrote about this attitude recently: the default these days is to reflexively engage in cynicism and assume any institution or proceeding you don’t like is corrupt. It’s a dangerous way of thinking. I don’t know what we can do to break out of it, but we need to.

99 Responses to “Sussmann Acquitted”

  1. This is all started because the corrupt person believes that everyone else is corrupt, just like he is. Classic case of projection.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  2. Very weak case, but Durham had nothing more urgent demanding his office’s resources like a real prosecutor does, and really no discretion. He had to take the shot.

    nk (e1ab85)

  3. It’s a problem. I think part of it is loss of faith in institutions when those institutions don’t reliably deliver desired results. If courts/LEO/FBI don’t consistently give you want you want why would you trust them and why wouldn’t you believe some outlandish conspiracy theory that explains the failure.

    It’s a lot easier to believe that some evil group of shadowing conspirators is cheating then it is to believe that your preferences are just less popular then the positions you hate. Especially with a media environment that’s figured out how to monetize outrage.

    It’s gone on long enough that the conspiracy theories have become so deeply held that they’re not falsifiable.

    No idea how to get out of it.

    Time123 (fcfc1c)

  4. Anyone who thought Durham had a chance was high.

    mg (8cbc69)

  5. Anyone who thought Durham had a chance was high.

    I agree. It was a pretty weak case.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  6. Vietnam’s Pentagon Papers; Watergate, Iran-Contra; WMD fakery; baseball players juicing; Afghanistan debacle; ‘deflategate’; China kissing NBA balls; Catholic priests diddling kiddies; Weinstein’s Hollywood; TV network and corporate ethics scandals; Enron; endless Congressional misdeeds; POTUS giving interns a turn… Operation Varsity Blues… zealous cops; Secret Service partiers; FBI eyed; SCOTUS leaker… and now, attempted assassin Hinckley, who disrupted and destroyed so many lives w/a gun, to walk free… to name a few; choose the institution[s] that have not earned a jaundiced eyeing and healthy dose of cynicism when corruption increasingly becomes the rule– not the exception.

    DCSCA (d56a7a)

  7. The Humiliation of John Durham
    …….
    …….Durham’s team alleged that Sussmann lied to (James) Baker (former FBI general counsel)—not about the substance of the tip but because Sussmann was working for the Clinton campaign.

    He was. But as Sussmann’s lawyer argued, “There is a difference between having a client, and doing something on their behalf.”

    Per Sussmann’s defense, he approached the FBI purely at his own behest to help keep Baker and the FBI from being caught unawares when the story imminently appeared in the press.

    It’s tough to disprove a private motivation. To do so “beyond a reasonable doubt,” you’d better have airtight evidence.

    Durham didn’t.

    In fact, Baker, the prosecution’s own witness, bolstered the defense. He testified that Sussmann helped him identify the reporter working on the Alfa Bank story so that the FBI could try to stop it. (Premature publicity jeopardizes investigations.)

    Baker’s testimony created reasonable doubt when combined with testimony from Robby Mook, the former Clinton campaign manager, and from Marc Elias, Sussmann’s then-supervisor on the matter at their law firm.

    Mook testified that Sussmann going to Baker contradicted the campaign’s goal: FBI involvement was undesirable because it could delay a news story that the Clinton campaign would have wanted published. Elias testified that he never authorized Sussmann to contact the FBI.

    What’s more, the prosecution had Sussmann’s client-billing sheets. While he charged the Clinton campaign for “work on confidential project” the day he spoke to Baker, the billing entry did not mention the FBI. Previously, Sussmann had specifically billed other clients in other matters for “meeting with FBI” when he did so on their behalf.

    Reasonable doubt screamed out.
    ………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  8. Even Andrew McCarthy at National Review didn’t expect an acquittal. The reason was that the FBI admitted that they knew that Sussman was working for Hillary. Sussman is a liar, and he lied to the FBI. However, his lie didn’t fool the FBI so the lie was not “material” in a legal sense. As Kim Strassel wrote in the WSJ, Durham already won because he proved that the FBI was in on the hoax. The FBI’s tech specialist knew that the Alpha Bank link to Trump’s campaign was BS, but others at the FBI proceeded with Operation Hurricane, nevertheless. Lisa Page and Peter Strok text messages prove that the personnel at the FBI were out to nail Trump. However, they apparently violated no statutes with their political bias.

    This effort only makes sense if Durham was using Sussman to lay a trap for prosecuting someone at the FBI for lying to get the FISA Court warrants approved. We’ll see if this is the end of the road for Durham.

    The Wean Corps (e685b5)

  9. Op Hurricane was handled in appropriately up and down the chain and right now, everyone wants it to just go away. The case was run from HQ, with SES-level agents making decisions that should have been handled by seasoned case agents. Stzrok should have not been involved in the case at all. Briefed on it? Of course. Ask questions? Sure. But getting involved in FISA applications and doing case work – never. The IG detailed the problems with this to the nth degree but who knows whether the IG’s investigation will prompt changes to ensure these political machinations don’t bleed into shoddy law enforcement work.

    Hoi Polloi (ade50d)

  10. @8, The FBI has started Crossfire Hurricane in July. Sussman spoke to the FBI in September.

    Time123 (5d092e)

  11. Error, meant to write that “Even Andrew McCarthy at NR didn’t expect a conviction.”

    The Wean Corps (e685b5)

  12. @10. I wrote proceeded with, not started, Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Strzok and Page bias preceded Sussman, but was stoked by it.

    The Wean Corps (e685b5)

  13. But Mike Flynn needed to be ran out of town because he materially “lied” to the FBI.

    If you don’t see the 2 tier justice right now, I’d ask you get your eye sight checked. 😉

    whembly (0ae2ca)

  14. It’s a dangerous way of thinking. I don’t know what we can do to break out of it, but we need to.

    let’s say you have two options:

    1. a trump appointed judge and a jury drawn from boise idaho
    2. an obama appointed judge and a DC jury

    if you’re the defense lawyer, which do you choose for sussmann?
    which do you choose for flynn?

    are the answers the same? why, or why not?

    if they’re different, is this a “dangerous way of thinking?”

    JF (e93577)

  15. You meant to say Coeur D’Alene, likely future capital of Greater Alberdaho.

    urbanleftbehind (747a76)

  16. Because there’s a difference between a more/less favorable jury and the claims being made about this case.

    Time123 (5d092e)

  17. Whembly, Flynn plead guilty.

    Time123 (5d092e)

  18. John Durham’s first trial was a bust

    if Weissmann puts a trump crony on trial who gets acquitted, but as part of sworn testimony a high level trump advisor says that trump knew about the dnc hack in advance and ok’d it, I seriously doubt we’d see a post here claiming the trial was a bust

    we’d witness unbridled euphoria lasting eons, and Weissmann would have the conundrum of deciding which ticker tape parade to appear in

    JF (a282c2)

  19. @14. Institutionalists would naturally cry a worrisome foul when questioning the competence or incompetence of protected bureaucrats. The problem is the incompetence is increasingly pervasive. Trump at least deserves credit for not ‘confirming’ the bureaucrats that he could- when he was able- and kept them pending– so as to be able to can them for poor job performance. You know, that private sector thingy your boss hold over staff in that if you don’t perform, “You’re fired.”

    DCSCA (a6b38a)

  20. @17 Time123, he recanted due to improper counsel (who had their own interest in Flynn to plea guilty due to their own involvement of Flynn’s FARA issues).

    Furthermore, the FBI interviewer had the transcript and didn’t share it with Flynn during the interview (as its SOP when seeking clarification of the conversations).

    So, again, I ask the same question: do you not see the differences?

    whembly (3bda0a)

  21. @18, nothing remotely like that happened in this trial, which I’m not sure if you understand or not.

    Time123 (5d092e)

  22. @20, Whembly, he lied. He admitted he lied, then accepted a pardon for lying, which is another admission that he lied.

    The FBI for sure went hard to try and get him to turn on Trump. But this looks like Durham doing the same thing. The only difference being the lack of a plea and a not guilty verdict.

    Time123 (5d092e)

  23. i think it’s great that sussmann can now say he didn’t lie

    that leaves us with an fbi that doesn’t have the excuse that they were deceived

    JF (e93577)

  24. Wanted to add, all of the analysis I saw said that Flynn was looking at probation as a likely sentence.

    Time123 (5d092e)

  25. Time123 (5d092e) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:31 pm

    it comes down to how you characterize what mook testified about clinton

    how would you characterize it, Time123, if not analogous?

    JF (e93577)

  26. JF, What are you talking about? What exactly is your theory for what the FBI did wrong? You do know that the investigation was in full swing before Sussman and the FBI field agents said they’d have investigated the tip even if they’d known where it came from? I’m honestly not clear on your theory of wrong doing in this instance/.

    Time123 (5d092e)

  27. @25, they testified that she was aware of and approved the efforts to place unflattering stories in the press. Not that she was aware of or participated in illegal activities.

    Time123 (5d092e)

  28. @27 “unflattering stories”

    lol that says it all

    we had an entire two year special counsel investigation ostensibly about “election meddling” using russian sourced misinformation

    but that was so 2017

    JF (e93577)

  29. Jury composition has no effect on verdicts, or something.

    I doubt a DC jury would convict a Democratic operative for anything. It’s just a game, but that’s okay. The positive effects of the 2016 election continue to be felt far beyond what happens to these hangers-on.

    mikeybates (08a902)

  30. No we didn’t. We had a special counsel investigation on Russia breaking US law to interfere in the election and if the Trump campaign coordinated with them.

    So I ask again, which illegal acts do you think were testified to?

    Time123 (5d092e)

  31. So I ask again, which illegal acts do you think were testified to?
    Time123 (5d092e) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:49 pm

    here you go

    On July 28, 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged plan to tie Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Obama reportedly was told how Clinton allegedly approved “a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”

    Thus, Mook testified that Clinton did precisely what Brennan warned Obama was being planned.

    The date of Brennan’s warning is important: It was three days before the FBI’s collusion investigation began. It also was a couple of months before Sussmann contacted then-FBI general counsel Jim Baker while claiming he was not representing any client. (He was counsel to the Clinton campaign and, according to prosecutors, billed the meeting time to the campaign.)

    JF (e93577)

  32. Even Andrew McCarthy at National Review didn’t expect an acquittal.

    The Andrew McCarthy writing on Fox News wasn’t surprised:

    Michael Sussmann’s not guilty verdict wasn’t a surprise. Here’s why

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  33. Your link doesn’t allege that this was intended to deceive the FBI, which could be a crime. It says it was intended to distract the public by vilifying Trump.

    So still not the same thing.

    Time123 (5d092e)

  34. This is a far more important verdict.

    /sarc

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  35. No idea how to get out of it.

    Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/1/2022 @ 9:15 am

    If your POV on this is remotely common, and I suspect it is, we don’t. The DOJ and IC are obviously and very proudly engaging in domestic politics. We’re well past this being something that can easily be fixed.

    This isn’t a matter of not getting what I want and pretending that it is is part of the problem.

    frosty (afabef)

  36. So, Covid.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  37. The FBI’s tech specialist knew that the Alpha Bank link to Trump’s campaign was BS, but others at the FBI proceeded with Operation Hurricane, nevertheless.

    Alfa Bank wasn’t the reason the FBI launched Operation Hurricane. Non-sequitur.
    Also, your comment that “Lisa Page and Peter Strok text messages prove that the personnel at the FBI were out to nail Trump” was canceled by IG Horowitz, which did not find evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI investigation.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  38. Would-be Reagan assassin John Hinckley Jr. set for June 15 release

    Hinckley was 25 when he shot Reagan, White House press secretary James Brady and two others with six exploding “Devastator” bullets from a .22-caliber pistol on March 30, 1981. A federal jury found Hinckley not guilty by reason of insanity in 1982, finding that he acted out of a deranged obsession to impress the actress Jodie Foster, setting off a historic debate that narrowed the insanity defense.

    A mass shooting by some definitions.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  39. Andrew McCarthy in the New York Post (boldface added by me)

    https://nypost.com/2022/05/31/durham-lost-because-he-treated-fbi-as-a-dupe-rather-than-clinton-collaborator

    .…If you don’t get the bureau’s role right, you’re apt to get the most consequential things wrong.

    Durham has banked his investigation on the premise that the FBI was a victim — an innocent dupe manipulated by the wily Clinton campaign. On Tuesday, this misplaced faith led to the acquittal of Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann….

    …..We are to see the FBI not as colluding with the Clinton campaign, but as victimized by the Clinton campaign.

    The false-statement case against Sussmann is one of three indictments Durham has brought in more than three years of conducting his probe. In each one, the defendant is accused of duping the FBI, not collaborating with the FBI, in an effort to portray Trump as a Kremlin asset.

    Besides Sussmann, Durham has charged Igor Danchenko, the principal source for the notoriously bogus Steele dossier, with lying to the bureau about his own sources of information. Remarkably, Danchenko had previously been suspected by the FBI of being a Russian agent; and the bureau did not even bother to interview him until it had used his information — without endeavoring to verify it — in applying under oath for FISA court surveillance warrants. His information was credited because it fit the predisposition of FBI headquarters that Trump was a cat’s-paw of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Durham’s other prosecution was of Kevin Clinesmith, an FBI lawyer. Clinesmith falsified information to conceal that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, whom the FBI portrayed as a Russian spy, had actually been informing the CIA about his Russia contacts. To most of us, that would strongly suggest that the FBI had lost its professional detachment when it came to suspicions about Trump. Yet even here, Durham sees the FBI as the victim: Clinesmith was charged not with defrauding the FISA court on behalf of the FBI, but of lying to the FBI; and he was permitted to plead guilty despite implausibly maintaining that neither he nor the bureau intended to deceive anyone.

    And then there’s Sussmann. The proof at trial demonstrated that what he gave the FBI was more a cover story than a false statement. If Sussmann had openly identified himself as a Clinton operative peddling opposition research, the bureau would have been seen as collaborating with the campaign by using the “oppo” as the pretext for an investigation. So Sussmann instead pretended that he was just a good citizen — a former Justice Department official who was bringing the FBI information out of patriotic concern for national security, not partisan motives.

    The FBI knew exactly who Sussmann was — he’d represented the DNC when its servers were hacked, and blocked the FBI from conducting its own forensic investigation. When Sussmann purveyed supposed evidence of a Trump-Russia communications back channel, the bureau knew full well that it was getting political information from a partisan source. The evidence at trial showed that FBI headquarters concealed Sussmann’s identity from the bureau’s own investigating agents. The FBI’s investigation-opening document falsely claimed that the information had come not from Sussmann but from the Justice Department. And even when the information proved bogus, FBI headquarters directed that the agents open a full-blown counterintelligence investigation anyway. Trump’s obvious innocence made no difference.

    You can’t prove a false-statements charge unless it is established that the investigating agency was fooled by the lie. In Sussmann’s trial, the proof showed that the cover story did not fool the FBI; it enabled the FBI, which was second only to the Clinton campaign in its commitment to pursuing the Trump-Russia “collusion” tale.

    I don’t think you needed to prove that the investigating agency was fooled by the lie. You have to prove that the lie mattered.

    And it did.

    There were internal lies within the FBI and they needed support. Not everyone in the FBI was part of a political conspiracy, nor could they be sure there wouldn’t be a price for them to pay if different people occupied federal office. Some higher-ups in the FBI needed the denial on the record, even if it was implausible.

    So it was material.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  40. I think the jury in the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard case probably, in general, reached the right decision.

    They found them both liable for defaming each other.

    Johnny Depp was awarded $15 million in compensation and Amber Heard was awarded $2 million.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  41. Johnny Depp was awarded $15 million in compensation and Amber Heard was awarded $2 million.

    Depp’s punitive damages of $5M were downgraded to the Virginia statutory maximum of $350K.

    They both should have received a $1. They deserved each other.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  42. @22 Time: not according to the transcript.

    You do know people take a plea deal, even if they believe they were innocent because of the gamble of going to court they could face even more severe penalty… is a thing right?

    Again, the biggest issue here is that the FBI is continually shown to be susceptible to partisan abuses. We should all be very concerned about that.

    whembly (7e0293)

  43. DC jury, yeah, they’d convict a sleaze ball Democrat.

    Strassel has it right. All that could rationally be expected was that those involved at the top would be exposed for what they approved. And that did happen.

    And when those involved in the justice system show what their principles have mutated into, show how much respect they truly have for what’s fair and impartial, it should be considered an eye opening gift.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  44. Remember the hinckley jury in d.c. A maga jury in the south would do the opposite. Political trials depend on no jury nullification. That usually happens when they are caught stealing not doing politics.

    asset (623cd9)

  45. @17 Time123, he recanted due to improper counsel…

    There was nothing to recant. Flynn was already convicted of his crime, and the judge refused to withdraw his ruling until he had the opportunity to review the DOJ’s motion to dismiss, but that was all short-circuited by Trump’s pardon.

    The irony here is the assertion that Flynn’s original defense counsel so “improper” that he was compelled to be replace them with Sidney “Batsh-t” Powell.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  46. OT- Plagiarist POTUS Complains He’s Not Getting Credit Due.

    Hilarious.

    Film at 11.

    DCSCA (5da801)

  47. RIP Ronnie Hawkins (87). The early 1960’s lineup of his band The Hawks included Levon Helm, Robbie Robertson, Rick Danko, Richard Manuel and Garth Hudson.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  48. Biden isn’t getting credit for being appointed to the US Naval Academy in 1965 either

    steveg (3cd664)

  49. OT- Another mass shooting w/rifle at hospital Tulsa at hospital; shooter dead; reports multiple casualties/injuries- possible fatalities.

    DCSCA (5da801)

  50. Here are a couple of Sussmann clips from dreadful, awful, horrible people:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5017354/user-clip-kennedy-wray

    https://mobile.twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1531837236697874434?cxt=HHwWhIC-sbn2lsIqAAAA

    I got past how much I hate the sources and was able to sit unbiased through the videos.

    If the second video is true doesn’t that make Wray’s answer really slimy?

    BuDuh (340919)

  51. “There are two standards of the law.” – Bill Barr on Fox News; 6/1/22

    Hmmmm. Rules for thee but no for me, eh, Billy Boy? And this pork chop was the Attorney General of the United States.

    Little wonder cynicism flourishes watering the tree of American Populism.

    DCSCA (5da801)

  52. Why is Director Wray “dreadful, awful, horrible”, BuDuh?

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  53. My error, Paul. The first clip came from Julie Kelly. I thought I posted her twitter link that went to the cspan clip. I was moaning and groaning about the sources, not the pristine director of the fbi. He is dandy.

    Anyways, hypothetically speaking, if the claim in the second clip is true do you think Wray was a little too coy in the first clip?

    BuDuh (340919)

  54. I only caught the first minute or so of the Wray clip and didn’t see anything objectionable. He clearly wasn’t interested in saying much about the case.
    As for Carlson-Gaetz, I’ll reserve judgment on the claim.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  55. Sammy, you are one of the most relentlessly detail oriented people I know. So when you say this:

    There were internal lies within the FBI and they needed support. Not everyone in the FBI was part of a political conspiracy, nor could they be sure there wouldn’t be a price for them to pay if different people occupied federal office. Some higher-ups in the FBI needed the denial on the record, even if it was implausible.

    So it was material.

    I’m inclined to believe you have some evidence of it. I haven’t seen any. It’s a plausible theory, but there are plenty of alternative explanations. Any testimony or documentary evidence that they were using Sussman’s statement in the way you describe? Again, I’m not saying that the motive you describe is impossible. Only that I haven’t seen any evidence of it.

    Another plausible explanation is “The Clinton campaign says they counted evidence of illegality, their lawyer gave us a tip. Could be BS but we should check it out quietly since that’s easy to do.”

    Time123 (fcfc1c)

  56. One of the things that’s bothered me about this is how people unhappy with the verdict have been claiming that this jury was biased, no DC jury can be trusted, or the American Justice system can’t be trusted. I guess those are claims that can be defended but I keep seeing one of the Juror’s statement taken out of context and misrepresented as proof of nullification.

    Here’s an example:

    My biggest concern is the jury foreman came out and really gave up what the jury was discussing, which is that they thought this case should have never been brought to their attention in the first place. And that’s a little concerning because this looks more like a jury nullification, where even though the evidence was overwhelming, even though they, the government, proved their case, that the jury just decided that this wasn’t a case worth pursuing

    What the Juror actually said about the Jury’s work was that they reviewed all the evidence and didn’t find in favor of the state. In a follow up question she was asked if she thought it was worth it and said she didn’t think it was. But taking only her follow up answer and using it to say that this was nullification is a lie. It’s one that Trump’s former AG asserted on Fox News, Jon Solomon repeated it, and it’s spread enough that it’s now ‘evidence’ that the jury was biased.

    One more example of a lie being used to destroy faith in our institutions when those institutions fail to deliver what ppl want.

    Several jurors declined to comment on the deliberations as they left the courthouse, but the foreperson spoke briefly with reporters and stressed the burden that the prosecution faced in the case.

    The government had the job of proving beyond a reasonable doubt,” she said, declining to give her name. “We broke it down…as a jury. It didn’t pan out in the government’s favor.

    Asked if she thought the prosecution was worthwhile, the foreperson said: “Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend to other things that affect the nation as a whole than a possible lie to the FBI. We could spend that time more wisely.”

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/31/sussmann-acquitted-trump-special-counsel-00036033

    Time123 (fcfc1c)

  57. Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 5:26 am

    jurors aren’t asked by the court to decide whether a case is worth bringing, and the average juror is aware of that

    the best answer would’ve been something like “that’s not our job”, and most jurors have the good sense to answer that way even if they think differently privately

    but the juror dove into the answer, indicating that she thought it was her job

    JF (35b3bf)

  58. Matt Whittaker on Fox. A Trump stooge on a Trump stage. Not to be taken seriously.

    The presumption of innocence is built-in. A “bias” that the jury is instructed to have. Literally instructed. As in written jury instructions. Written with letters It was Durham’s job to overcome it. He did not.

    nk (b8bc21)

  59. the problem with not accepting outcomes from our institutions, is that those complaining about it now aren’t the same people complaining about it in 2016

    JF (9cb379)

  60. JF, I think a juror is entitled to their opinion on if a trial was worth it after they’ve discharged their duties. I was on a Jury once and i have an opinion about if that trial was a good idea. Also, she was responding to a direct question from a reporter, not the court.

    But that wasn’t my point. My point was that not including her statement that the jury evaluated the evidence to arrive at the verdict is deceptive and lies to the audience about what she was saying and what was happening.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  61. Time123 (9f42ee) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:31 am

    a juror is certainly entitled to their opinion, just as they’re entitled to cast doubt on their objectivity with whatever opinions they choose to voice

    JF (35b3bf)

  62. Since I brought it up.

    I was a juror on a retail fraud case.

    The defendant was charged with stealing 4 bottles of expensive champagne worth enough money for a felony.

    We found that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he’d stolen 3 bottles of champagne; which was worth enough money for a misdemeanor. So we convicted him of that.

    It took 3 days, and in deliberation we discussed that it seemed like a jury trial over 500$ of champagne was odd. No one was worked up over it. But we all thought it was odd and assumed there were facts we didn’t know. But that wasn’t a factor in how we decided.

    After the trial the judge explained that the defendant was a repeat offender and would have faced significant prison time had we convicted him of a felony. Which is why they charged him the way they did. So while he got some jail time for the conviction it was a win for the defense.

    Pretty easy defense as I recall. The state presented no evidence that 4 bottles had been stolen. They had video of at least 2 being taken off the shelf, and a witness that saw the 3rd. But that was it. No evidence on the 4th. When asked the police didn’t know if any inventory or accounting had been done to determine how many were missing.

    Defense did a good job of showing that only 3 bottles were accounted for.

    Story seemed slightly relevant as evidence that Jurors do think of questions about the importance of the case.

    Time123 (fcfc1c)

  63. @61 What’s being reported is still a lie.

    Time123 (fcfc1c)

  64. Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:41 am

    it sounds like you put a lot of thought into it, and had the right questions in your head, but it looks like those questions were material to the case and didn’t revolve around whether the defendant was a D or an R

    JF (35b3bf)

  65. some context:

    Shaw told the jury that the FBI “should not be used as a political tool for anyone – not Republicans. Not Democrats. Not anyone.” She then added that the jurors themselves should not use this trial for their own political judgments.

    Looking at the jury box, one can understand Shaw’s unease. During jury selection, one juror admitted he was a Clinton donor and could only promise to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Prosecutors objected to his being seated, but Judge Christopher Cooper overruled them.

    In another exchange, a former bartender and donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was told by a Sussmann defense lawyer that neither Clinton nor Trump were on trial and then asked if she could be impartial. She responded, “Yes, knowing that” — which might suggest she would not be impartial if the campaigns were part of the trial.

    Other jurors include a woman who said she thought she was a Clinton donor but could not remember; a juror whose husband worked for the Clinton 2008 campaign; and a juror who believes the legal system is racist and police departments should be defunded.

    To be sure, D.C. voters chose Clinton over Trump in 2016 by a breathtaking margin: 90.9 percent to 4.1 percent. While liberal and Democratic jurors still can be fair and impartial, Judge Cooper has seated a couple jurors who seemed to struggle with the concept of impartiality.

    JF (35b3bf)

  66. What’s being reported is still a lie.
    Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:42 am

    i think the bar for what’s a lie got moved higher recently

    JF (35b3bf)

  67. jurors aren’t asked by the court to decide whether a case is worth bringing, and the average juror is aware of that

    Grand juries are. That’s what grand juries do. Decide whether a case is worth bringing. But they apply a much, much, much (three muches) lower standard than a trial jury.

    And here’s the deal, man, and let’s cut the malarkey. The grand jury that indicted Sussmann was also a DC jury.

    nk (72a763)

  68. nk (72a763) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:58 am

    …as every ham sandwich nods in agreement

    JF (35b3bf)

  69. Patterico is right to be concerned about the trashing of institutions, whether it’s the courts, public health, investigatory bodies, or the electoral process. It’s not that our institutions should never be questioned or held to account. Our news ecosystem is a mess and a big part of the problem. There’s aspects of organized religion that deserve pointed criticism these days. The problem though is when we erode criticial institutions, like the belief that elections are overwhelmingly fair, what exactly fills the void? The same with the courts, the same with public health, the same with academic researchers/expertise.

    It all devolves to confirmation bias and living in bubbles that reinforce questionable conclusions and questionable policy positions. It doesn’t help that Trump plays on this and elevates it. We no longer as a society can accept criticism and find middle ground. Everything is an existential battle that has us defend the indefensible…because the other side is always worse. So it starts and ends with how we consume information and treat each other. Stop playing the melodramatic victim and see both sides. Social media is a beast that we are making it our master. At some point someone has to clean up after the bull in the China shop.

    AJ_Liberty (a36eed)

  70. an example was set in 2016-17-18

    those who set that example are now really upset that others are following it, and want their concerns taken seriously

    JF (35b3bf)

  71. Dozens of comments but little about evidence, relevant case law, and burden….it just has to be the jury….and hypocrisy….waaaaahhh, unfair, unfair

    AJ_Liberty (a36eed)

  72. @64, nothing in the Juror’s statements indicated partisan bias just that she didn’t think this alleged crime was a big deal.

    Which given that the FBI field agents testified that the investigations wouldn’t have been any different had they known the source makes some sense.

    Time123 (fcfc1c)

  73. Patterico is right to be concerned about the trashing of institutions, whether it’s the courts, public health, investigatory bodies, or the electoral process.

    I would add that if that is the reason that Trump’s Justice Department never after the DC pizzerias with pedophiles in their basements, because Sessions, Whittaker and Barr believed that they could never get a conviction with a DC jury, that it is a very serious demoralizing consequence.

    nk (72a763)

  74. never *went* after

    nk (72a763)

  75. @72, yup. Lots of grievance and hurt feelings but that’s about it.

    Time123 (9b76f4)

  76. @69. Our news ecosystem is a mess and a big part of the problem…

    Except it’s not. Don’t blame the messengers for the plethora of failings and growing incompetence surfacing in our graying institutions. When government bureaucrats- be they be-robed or in gold-braided uniforms- fail to perform by losing track of their paperwork– or abandon billions in costly equipment, at taxpayer expense, they deserve to be raked over the coals– especially when you can’t fire them for poor job performance, as you can in the private sector.

    DCSCA (19ac70)

  77. a juror is certainly entitled to their opinion, just as they’re entitled to cast doubt on their objectivity with whatever opinions they choose to voice

    (an) ex-juror is certainly entitled to their opinion, just as they’re entitled to cast doubt on their objectivity with whatever opinions they choose to voice…

    FIFY

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  78. “Except it’s not.”

    Watch FNC and MSNBC and get back to us. We now mix hard news with partisan news analysis so that we’ve created two separate realities….with few common facts. If we don’t like something, we now just call it fake news. These aren’t the referees of your youth….

    AJ_Liberty (a36eed)

  79. It’s worse then that. To keep engagement up they try to make outrage a key part of every story. That leads to sensational slants and building an emotional position in the audience that is at best exaggerated and at worst completely untethered from reality.

    Time123 (fcfc1c)

  80. @78. Pfft. Don’t blame the messengers, AJ.

    DCSCA (4b1e14)

  81. Read Pat’s substack and get back to us. Like NASA, it looks like one more personal blind spot.

    AJ_Liberty (a36eed)

  82. @81. Why don’t you read #6 and #19 AJ– then get back to ‘us’.

    Don’t blame the messengers.

    DCSCA (cc0cd1)

  83. Which given that the FBI field agents testified that the investigations wouldn’t have been any different had they known the source makes some sense.
    Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 8:35 am

    yeah, if you think lying to the fbi didn’t really matter to their investigation then who cares

    now do flynn

    better yet, maybe you can argue with a 2017 version of yourself and let us know who wins

    JF (35c408)

  84. @82, if you want to defend Tucker Carlson, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Al Sharpton, and Chris Hayes, have at it. News analysis from Jesse Watters? He ain’t no Cronkite. It’s harder for people to differentiate fact from speculation from spin. They know what they’re doing….and it’s hard to run a democracy that way. The Russians love our media and you love them Russians.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  85. JF, You seem to have misunderstood my comment. I said that given the testimony of the FBI on the lack of impact of the alleged lie the Juror’s perspective that the trial wasn’t a good use of time makes sense.

    Especially since the Jury quickly and unanimously found not guilty.

    FWIW I think the definition of material as written is bad one and needs to be reformed to show that there was some actual impact to the lie. But it should be enforced fairly until it’s changed.

    I don’t see a lot difference here between Sussman and Flynn. In both cases it seems likely that a DOJ prosecutor was trying to use a false statements change to get additional information for an active investigation. Difference been Flynn plead guilty and Sussman plead not guilty and went to trial.

    Time123 (fcfc1c)

  86. @84. AJ when you figure out the difference is between journalists and opinion pundits, get back to ‘us.’

    Don’t blame the messengers.

    DCSCA (cc0cd1)

  87. It’s harder for people to differentiate fact from speculation from spin.

    Reaganoptics. Reaganaurics. Thank Ronnie’s evil minions for revoking the Fairness Doctrine, AJ. Only fools would consider the likes of a dead Rush Limbaugh, a lively Sean Hannity or a loofah wielding Bill O’Reilly as new sources. Cable opinionators, newspaper columnists and talk radio DJs are entertainers.

    DCSCA (cc0cd1)

  88. Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 5:03 am

    Sammy, you are one of the most relentlessly detail oriented people I know. So when you say this:

    There were internal lies within the FBI and they needed support. Not everyone in the FBI was part of a political conspiracy, nor could they be sure there wouldn’t be a price for them to pay if different people occupied federal office. Some higher-ups in the FBI needed the denial on the record, even if it was implausible.

    So it was material.

    Time123:

    I’m inclined to believe you have some evidence of it. I haven’t seen any. It’s a plausible theory, but there are plenty of alternative explanations. Any testimony or documentary evidence that they were using Sussman’s statement in the way you describe?

    I didn’t follow the case so much myself but that they lied internally is what I draw from what Andrew McCarthy wrote:

    https://nypost.com/2022/05/31/durham-lost-because-he-treated-fbi-as-a-dupe-rather-than-clinton-collaborator

    The evidence at trial showed that FBI headquarters concealed Sussmann’s identity from the bureau’s own investigating agents. The FBI’s investigation-opening document falsely claimed that the information had come not from Sussmann but from the Justice Department. And even when the information proved bogus, FBI headquarters directed that the agents open a full-blown counterintelligence investigation anyway..

    It seems to me that if they concealed Sussmann’s name from the investigating agents and put down that it came from the DOJ that they were lying internally — unless the agents charged with investigating were in on the game or never knew what was being written down somewhere.

    But it is somewhat logical there would be internal lies because then not that many people would have haad to be doing something improper.

    Again, I’m not saying that the motive you describe is impossible. Only that I haven’t seen any evidence of it.

    Another plausible explanation is “The Clinton campaign says they counted evidence of illegality, their lawyer gave us a tip. Could be BS but we should check it out quietly since that’s easy to do.”

    That wouldn’t be unreasonable, but it is not what they wrote.

    Now I think higher ups at the FBI did not try to affect the election – they didn’t want to guess who would win. or try to help one side win. But they did want to get along with whomever would be in charge in the future. For this reason they attempted to satisfy the Clinton campaign, without at the same time, actually investigating Donald Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  89. The Clinton campaign wanted an investigation that pointed to Donald Trump himself so there would be something that neutralize the problem of the investigation of Hillary for not treating classified information properly

    They also wanted to accuse Trump of intentionally working with Putin. (and this would be helped by the fact of an FBI investigation which could be leaked, and if it was true that there was an FBI investigation, reporters would be much more likely to believe and report the leak)

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-reid-letter-fbi-james-comey-clinton-emails-trump-russia-ties-hatch-act

    The pugilistic Reid, who plans to retire after finishing out this term in Congress, penned a blistering letter to Comey Sunday, accusing the FBI chief of holding back “explosive” information about Donald Trump’s close Russian ties while possibly violating the Hatch Act by reviving the Clinton email investigation.

    “Your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be a clear intent to aid one political party over another,” Reid wrote, adding that through Comey’s “partisan actions, you may have broken the law.”

    One example Reid posited of the “selective approach”: Comey’s methods in investigating Donald Trump and his campaign’s possible ties to the Russian government.

    “In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government – a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity,” he said. “I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public…and yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information.”

    Now I think Harry Reid was acting on behalf of the Democratic campaign, just like he was in 2012 when he made up that story about Romney paying no taxes.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  90. The Fairness Doctrine was an infringement of the 1A (per FCC)…it’s no solution and it only applied to broadcast medium, where there is a limited spectrum.

    Trust in news media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly is at 36%. That’s below Biden. That’s not because of Reagan….he’s been dead awhile…and it’s certainly not only because of Talk Radio, which is meant to be entertainment but also shapes attitudes.
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/355526/americans-trust-media-dips-second-lowest-record.aspx

    People come to conventional news sources with heavy biases already in place. This created the market for Left/Right journalism that creates big holes in our collective understanding. What makes the news, how it is portrayed, and the tone is different from network to network…again Reagan didn’t cause this, he’s still dead. Professional journalism has been subsumed (dwarfed) and captured by opinionating and political correctness. Read patterico’s substack piece and see an example in action…then get back to us

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  91. @90. Infringement? ROFLMAOPIP.

    Bull.

    =mike-drop=

    DCSCA (e5ebab)

  92. Trust in news media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly is at 36%.

    … and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (e5ebab)

  93. Of course, I think that Vladimir Putin would never attempt to work confidentially with Trump, but I do think he thought Hillary had been responsible for the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in February 2014 because he thought Victoria Nuland was one of her women — Hillary tried to backdate the break with Putin to 2011.

    And I think he also hoped to plant spies or agents of influence in a future U.S. Administration.

    He didn’t succeed, due in no small part to the FBI entrapping Mike Flynn, but he did succeed in getting Trump to fire the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine and to cut off military aid to Ukraine for about 55 days in 2019 (acting through informants of Giuliani)

    Anyway this is what Hillary Clinton herself said: (after first arranging for others to be the original sources)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/19/the-final-trump-clinton-debate-transcript-annotated

    …. WALLACE: Secretary Clinton, I want to clear up your position on this issue, because in a speech you gave to a Brazilian bank, for which you were paid $225,000, we’ve learned from the WikiLeaks, that you said this, and I want to quote. “My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.” So that’s the question…

    TRUMP: Thank you.

    WALLACE: That’s the question. Please quiet, everybody. Is that your dream, open borders?

    CLINTON: Well, if you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy. You know, we trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined. And I do want us to have an electric grid, an energy system that crosses borders. I think that would be a great benefit to us.

    But you are very clearly quoting from WikiLeaks

    And what’s really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans. They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions. Then they have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the Internet. [This is actually true – SF]

    [She then seems to e claiming an exclusionary rule should exist here.

    This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly, from Putin himself, in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election.

    CLINTON: So I actually think the most important question of this evening, Chris, is, finally, will Donald Trump admit and condemn that the Russians are doing this and make it clear that he will not have the help of Putin in in this election, that he rejects Russian espionage against Americans, which he actually encouraged in the past? Those are the questions we need answered. We’ve never had anything like this happen in any of our elections before.

    WALLACE: Well?

    TRUMP: That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders, OK? How did we get on to Putin?

    WALLACE: Hold on — hold on, wait. Hold on, folks. Because we — this is going to end up getting out of control. Let’s try to keep it quiet so — for the candidates and for the American people.

    TRUMP: So just to finish on the borders…

    WALLACE: Yes?

    TRUMP: She wants open borders. People are going to pour into our country. People are going to come in from Syria. She wants 550 percent more people than Barack Obama, and he has thousands and thousands of people. They have no idea where they come from.

    And you see, we are going to stop radical Islamic terrorism in this country. She won’t even mention the words, and neither will President Obama. So I just want to tell you, she wants open borders.

    Now we can talk about Putin. I don’t know Putin. He said nice things about me. If we got along well, that would be good. If Russia and the United States got along well and went after ISIS, that would be good.

    He has no respect for her. He has no respect for our president. And I’ll tell you what: We’re in very serious trouble, because we have a country with tremendous numbers of nuclear warheads — 1,800, by the way — where they expanded and we didn’t, 1,800 nuclear warheads. And she’s playing chicken. Look, Putin…

    WALLACE: Wait, but…

    TRUMP: … from everything I see, has no respect for this person.

    CLINTON: Well, that’s because he’d rather have a puppet as president of the United States.

    TRUMP: No puppet. No puppet.

    CLINTON: And it’s pretty clear…

    TRUMP: You’re the puppet!

    CLINTON: It’s pretty clear you won’t admit…

    TRUMP: No, you’re the puppet.

    CLINTON: … that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race.

    So I think that this is such an unprecedented situation. We’ve never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17 — 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.

    WALLACE: Secretary Clinton…

    CLINTON: And I think it’s time you take a stand…

    TRUMP: She has no idea whether it’s Russia, China, or anybody else.

    CLINTON: I am not quoting myself.

    TRUMP: She has no idea.

    CLINTON: I am quoting 17…

    TRUMP: Hillary, you have no idea.

    CLINTON: … 17 intelligence — do you doubt 17 military and civilian…

    TRUMP: And our country has no idea.

    CLINTON: … agencies.

    TRUMP: Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it.

    CLINTON: Well, he’d rather believe Vladimir Putin than the military and civilian intelligence professionals who are sworn to protect us. I find that just absolutely…

    (CROSSTALK)

    TRUMP: She doesn’t like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her at every step of the way.

    WALLACE: Mr. Trump…

    TRUMP: Excuse me. Putin has outsmarted her in Syria.

    WALLACE: Mr. Trump…

    (CROSSTALK)

    TRUMP: He’s outsmarted her every step of the way.

    WALLACE: I do get to ask some questions.

    TRUMP: Yes, that’s fine.

    WALLACE: And I would like to ask you this direct question. The top national security officials of this country do believe that Russia has been behind these hacks. Even if you don’t know for sure whether they are, do you condemn any interference by Russia in the American election?

    TRUMP: By Russia or anybody else.

    WALLACE: You condemn their interference?

    TRUMP: Of course I condemn. Of course I — I don’t know Putin. I have no idea.

    [Note: in a Republican debate in 2015, Trump claimed that he did know Putin, and he got to know him very well because they appeared on the same episode of 690 Minutes. Of course, these segments are pre-taped and there is no green room 60 Minutes. Trump did fool some of the other candidates in that debate including Carly Fiorina. You could look it up..]

    WALLACE: I’m not asking — I’m asking do you condemn?

    TRUMP: I never met Putin. This is not my best friend. But if the United States got along with Russia, wouldn’t be so bad.

    Let me tell you, Putin has outsmarted her and Obama at every single step of the way. Whether it’s Syria, you name it. Missiles. Take a look at the “start up” that they signed. The Russians have said, according to many, many reports, I can’t believe they allowed us to do this. They create warheads, and we can’t. The Russians can’t believe it. She has been outsmarted by Putin.

    And all you have to do is look at the Middle East. They’ve taken over. We’ve spent $6 trillion. They’ve taken over the Middle East. She has been outsmarted and outplayed worse than anybody I’ve ever seen in any government whatsoever.

    WALLACE: We’re a long way away from immigration, but I’m going to let you finish this topic. You got about 45 seconds.

    TRUMP: And she always will be.

    CLINTON: I — I find it ironic that he’s raising nuclear weapons. This is a person who has been very cavalier, even casual about the use of nuclear weapons. He’s…

    TRUMP: Wrong. CLINTON: … advocated more countries getting them, Japan, Korea, even Saudi Arabia. He said, well, if we have them, why don’t we use them, which I think is terrifying.

    But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so. And that’s why 10 people who have had that awesome responsibility have come out and, in an unprecedented way, said they would not trust Donald Trump with the nuclear codes or to have his finger on the nuclear button.

    TRUMP: I have 200 generals…

    WALLACE: Very quickly.

    TRUMP: … and admirals, 21 endorsing me, 21 congressional Medal of Honor recipients. As far as Japan and other countries, we are being ripped off by everybody in the — we’re defending other countries. We are spending a fortune doing it. They have the bargain of the century.

    All I said is, we have to renegotiate these agreements, because our country cannot afford to defend Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and many other places. We cannot continue to afford — she took that as saying nuclear weapons.

    WALLACE: OK.

    TRUMP: Look, she’s been proven to be a liar on so many different ways. This is just another lie.

    CLINTON: Well, I’m just quoting you when you were asked…

    TRUMP: There’s no quote. You’re not going to find a quote from me.

    CLINTON: … about a potential nuclear — nuclear competition in Asia, you said, you know, go ahead, enjoy yourselves, folks. That kind…

    TRUMP: And defend yourselves.

    CLINTON: … of language — well…

    TRUMP: And defend yourselves. I didn’t say nuclear. And defend yourself.

    CLINTON: The United States has kept the peace — the United States has kept the peace through our alliances. Donald wants to tear up our alliances. I think it makes the world safer and, frankly, it makes the United States safer. I would work with our allies in Asia, in Europe, in the Middle East, and elsewhere. That’s the only way we’re going to be able to keep the peace.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  94. Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 1:58 pm

    FWIW I think the definition of material as written is bad one and needs to be reformed to show that there was some actual impact to the lie.

    I think something can be material if the person who lied thought or could reasonably think it could afect an investigation.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  95. https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cnr/date/2015-11-11/segment/18

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/us/politics/transcript-republican-presidential-debate.html

    . But, as far as the Ukraine is concerned, and you could Syria — as far as Syria, I like — if Putin wants to go in, and I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes, we were stablemates, and we did very well that night.

    But, you know that.

    But, if Putin wants to go and knocked the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, 100%, and I can’t understand how anybody would be against it…

    BUSH: …They’re not doing that…

    TRUMP: …They blew up — hold it….

    BUSH: (INAUDIBLE)

    TRUMP: …They blew up, wait a minute.

    AUDIENCE REACTION)

    TRUMP: …They blew up a Russian airplane. He cannot be in love with these people. He’s going in, and we can go in, and everybody should go in. As far as the Ukraine is concerned, we have a group of people, and a group of countries, including Germany — tremendous economic behemoth — why are we always doing the work?

    …..

    FIORINA: You know, Mr. Trump fancies himself a very good negotiator. And, I accept that he’s done a lot of good deals, so, Mr. Trump ‘ought to know that we should not speak to people from a position of weakness. Senator Paul should know that as well.

    One of the reasons I’ve said that I would not be talking to Vladimir Putin right now, although I have met him as well, not in a green room for a show, but in a private meeting.

    [In 2004 I think, In Beijing, where they both were to speak]

    (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

    FIORINA: One of the reasons I’ve said I wouldn’t be talking to Vladimir Putin right now is because we are speaking to him from a position of weakness brought on by this administration, so, I wouldn’t talk to him for awhile, but, I would do this. I would start rebuilding the Sixth Fleet right under his nose, rebuilding the military — the missile defense program in Poland right under his nose. I would conduct very aggressive military exercises in the Baltic States so that he understood we would protect our NATO allies…

    (BELL RINGING)

    …and I might also put in a few more thousand troops into Germany, not to start a war, but to make sure that Putin understand that the United States of America will stand with our allies. That is why Governor Bush is correct. We must have a no fly zone in Syria because Russia cannot tell the United States of America where and when to fly our planes. We also have a set of allies…

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  96. =yawn= After the fifth ‘My God’ and the moment he mentioned dead Beau- changed channel…

    If 50 year swampy, senator Squinty McStumblebum feigns an inability to do anything about gas prices he sure as hell can’t manage the gun issue. ‘Do something’ doesn’t mean flying away to the beach tonight.

    He ain’t no LBJ nor HST.

    DCSCA (f78a88)

  97. I think something can be material if the person who lied thought or could reasonably think it could afect an investigation.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 6/2/2022 @ 3:33 pm

    “Could reasonably think” is close, but I believe “thought” is incorrect. A lie is material for purposes of 18 USC 1001 if it has “a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed.” That looks objective, not subjective or objective-subjective.

    That said, there’s a logic to your inclusion of “thought.” It’s an element of 18 USC 1001 that the lie be committed willfully, which means “the defendant acted deliberately and with knowledge both that the statement was untrue and that his or her conduct was unlawful.” One could argue the defendant must know the lie is material, or else the question of willfulness becomes recursive. Whether and if so how that’s been resolved I have no idea.

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  98. Sussmann was found innocent, but isn’t it odd that the FBI and Perkins Coie supposedly had a liason office in a Perkins Coie building for the FBI and Sussmann was in charge of that liaison?
    How convenient that turned out to be.

    The FBI did not emerge covered in glory

    steveg (c57b54)

  99. What BS. The evidence showed the conspiracy was real, HRC was the source. This trial, having political implications, taking place anywhere within 200 miles of DC is like have an all white jury from Alabama decide the guilty of a black man……in the 50s. Try that case again in Ohio or FLorida.

    Richard Wetmore (220adb)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1572 secs.